CCP 03-30-1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

\ . Arden Hills Council 2 March 9, 1992 Ci ty Engineer, Mark Graham, gave a brief overview of the project explaining that approval of the project was given by Council and Rice Creek Watershed District, but then some problems, primari 1 y with drainage, were uncovered and adjustments were made to the plan to address the problem areas; estimated costs would likely increase by 20-30% as a result of the adjustments. Councilmember Malone asked if the concerns surrounding the George Reiling property will be addressed within the modified plan. Attorney Filla advised that discussions with Mr. Reil ing and other affected property owners have taken place and that action is being taken to react to the concerns expressed. A question was raised from the audience as to how the project will be funded and if affected property owners will be assessed. Mayor Sather commented that it would be inappropriate to discuss costs at this time, given the fact that the cost of the project with the modifications is yet to be determined. . stated he was not George Rei 1 ing , 661 Heinel Drive, Roseville, opposed to the latest drainage plans, but is defini tel y opposed to assessing the property owners. He said that he did not understand how the City could damage private property and then expect the property owner to pay. He commented that there was adequate drainage in the area until the City allowed homes to be built at inappropriate locations and the engineering firm should be held accountable. Ron Nelson, 4504 Keithson Drive, commented that all the property owners in the area paid significant prices for their lots and homes and assumed the developer and the City had addressed drainage concerns before allowing the building. He contended that the costs involved are the City's responsibility and it is unreasonable for the City to even consider assessing the affected property owners simply because the project was mismanaged. Kurt Lawrence, 4516 Keithson Drive, stated that he bought his home only a couple of years ago and had no knowledge of any potential assessment. He said assessing would be totally unfair and that the developer was not truthful with the property owners in that there was no suggestion of a potential problem; the engineers and developer should have been responsible. He questioned the extent of City responsibility . since the bond for this project was released to the developer.